Delhi

North East

CC/21/2017

SHER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: N-E

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 21/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sher Singh	Complainant
	Versus
	Bank of Baroda	Opposite Party

Date of Decision:- 05.02.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The OP moved an application in the present complaint post being reinstated in the proceedings before us by Hon’ble SCDRC vide order dated 26.02.2018 against order passed by this Forum dated 29.11.2017 vide which it had been proceeded against ex-parte. The present application was filed for dismissal of the present complaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction at the OP’s evidence stage of proceedings. The OP, urged that as per Section 11 (2) (a) (b) (c) of CPA, territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum has been clearly laid down and further in terms of this Section, the Hon’ble Delhi SCDRC clearly demarcated territorial jurisdiction of all 10 District Forums in Delhi also available on its website whereby respective police stations have been ear marked / assigned to the said Forums and the police station pertinent to the present case i.e. Vivek Vihar Police Station falls within the jurisdiction of District Forum Saini Enclave East Delhi and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction as preliminary objection raised by the OP by way of the present application.

OP has attached copy of the list of 10 District Forum in Delhi with their respective bench and police stations attached.

2. Complainant has filed reply to the application of OP placing reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 01.02.2018 in Writ Petition No. 11424/2016 & CM No. 44784/2016 filed by the Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association against Lieutenant Governor & Ors in which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed that the Districts Forums shall strictly abide by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in their decisions in light of its earlier decision dated 31.10.2007 in which the Hon’ble Delhi SCDRC had held that Delhi is one District divided into several Districts for the sake of administrative convenience and not territorial jurisdiction and therefore every district Forum will have jurisdiction over every case and order passed by it shall be final and cannot be held invalid on grounds that complaint was not within territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District Forum. The complainant therefore opposed the application of the OP and prayed for its dismissal as non maintainable.
3. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. During the course of oral arguments OP placed on record judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Sonic Surgical Vs NIC passed in CA No. 1560/2004 on 20.10.2009 and judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi in Sandeep Gupta Vs Imperial Housing Ventures Pvt Ltd and Ors in complaint no. 1368/2016 passed on 06.12.2016 relying on Sonic Surgical judgment in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that some cause of action should have arisen at the Branch Office for jurisdiction to be attracted.
4. The Hon’ble SCDRC in an iconic recent judgment dated 01.11.2017 in the case of Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn passed in FA No. 488 of 2017 has dealt with similar issue of territorial jurisdiction in which the appellant had relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble SCDRC in cases of Mahesh Ramnath Vs Secretary Cum-Commissioner Transport, Singhs Dental Hospital Vs Amrit Lal Dureja, Holy Family Hospital Vs Amit Kumar and Sardar Swaranjeet Singh Vs Anil Kumar Dixit as also relied upon by the complainant in the present case. The Hon’ble State Commission has pertinently observed that vide notification dated 20.04.1999, the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of NCTD divided Delhi in ten Districts defining their respective area and this notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted. Obviously, therefore, the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos. If all the litigants prefer to chose one Forum, that Forum would be overburdened and remaining nine Forums would become idle and had dismissed the Appeal.
5. The Hon’ble SCDRC in the said judgment had further observed that appellant in FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2016. The said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.2012. Hon’ble National Commission called for report from President of Hon’ble State Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same being followed or not and if not for what reasons. On 27.09.2012 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district Forums of Delhi was a matter of great public importance. Therefore, Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on notification. Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the Hon’ble National Commission to communicate directions of National Commission to officers concerned for compliance. Hon’ble National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit. Therefore Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed by Hon’ble NCDRC to furnish reports from all the District Forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been entertained / decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification. Mahesh Ramnath revision petition was dismissed by Hon’ble NCDRC on 09.09.2014. However irrespective of such dismissal, question of territorial jurisdiction already stood decided before that by Hon’ble NCDRC by orders dated 27.09.2001 itself. Further directions of Hon’ble NCDRC dated 05.11.2012 apprised the Ld. Commissioner Cum-Secretary Department of Consumer, Food and Civil Supplies Government of NCT of Delhi about its concern with regard to exercise their territorial jurisdiction by ten consumer Fora for which the Ld. Commissioner had assured the Hon’ble NCDRC that various Distt Fora  working in NCTD shall exercise its jurisdiction and power strictly and accordance with the demarcation of their respective jurisdiction in terms of Government of Delhi, Director of Consumer Affair, Gazette Extra Ordinary (part IV) notification No. F.50(47)46/F&S (CA) dated 20.04.1999. According to Hon’ble NCDRC this is otherwise necessary to avoid Forum shopping and thereby has over ruled the view taken by Hon’ble SCDRC in Mahesh Ram Nath case and impliedly over ruled other such decision of Hon’ble SCDRC including Sardar Swaranjeet Singh case, Holy Family Hospital etc. On perusal of the above said notification it is clear that by virtue of this said notification, Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi has made specific provision in general for allocation of business amongst various District Forums ear marking and specified the territories falling under different police station to each District Forum. The cause of action, residence of the OP, head office or branch office or area corporation of OP shall determine the territorial jurisdiction of each district Forum in consonance with the area specified in the said notification of Hon’ble LG of Delhi. Moreover, both the branch office and cause of action partly or wholly should coexist within the territorial jurisdiction of the district Forum to attract its jurisdiction in view of Sonic Surgical’s case. In Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.10.2009 has sealed the issue of territorial jurisdiction leaving no ambiguity with respect thereto.  
6. The Director, Consumer Affairs, issued a circular No. F50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.2012 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit. It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.1999 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. On the basis of said letter Registrar of Hon’ble SCDRC wrote a letter No. F1. (Misc)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.2012 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. the above mentioned notification/circular. National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial jurisdiction.
7. Subsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 11424 of 2016 passed on 01.02.2018 relied upon by the complainant, the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 01.03.2018 in Revision Petition 575 of 2018 arising against the order dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal no. 488 of 2017 passed by Hon’ble SCDRC in Prem Joshi vs Jurasic Park Inn & Ors held that in terms of Section 11 of CPA a complaint can be instituted inter alia in a district Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises and since in the present case the complainant booked the tickets for the amusement part of OP online from his office at Karol Bagh, the district Forum at Tis Hazari would have territorial jurisdiction as part cause of action arose under his jurisdiction as per Section 11 (2) (c) of CPA. The Hon’ble National Commission further held that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the LIS. Therefore in order to succeed in the consumer complaint the complainant will necessarily have to prove the cause of action falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned district Forum.

In view of the latest settled proposition of law by Hon’ble NCDRC in the above mentioned Order pronounced in the Revision Petition no. 585 of 2018 passed in Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn case, it has further clarified and strictly defined and broad lined the territorial jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act and therefore the said judgment shall have binding effect on all district Foras as is founded on reasons and on consideration of issue of territorial jurisdiction.

8. Coming to the complaint before us for admission, the complainant has failed to show anywhere in the complaint as to how the present complaint falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 11 (2) (a) or (b) or (c) since OP has its Branch Office at Vivek Vihar, Delhi and no cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum anywhere as per the pleadings in the complaint.
9. In the present case therefore none of the conditions laid down for admissibility of complaint under Section 11 sub clause (a) (b) (c) is getting fulfilled in terms of the arraignment of opposite party in as much as it is neither carrying on business nor having a branch office nor is personally working for gain and lastly no cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
10.  In light of the foregoing observations made in view of the settled proposition of law on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of consumer Forums, we allow the present application for dismissal of the present complaint on the said ground urged by the OP and accordingly dismiss the present complaint due to erroneous jurisdiction which does not accord or vest in this Forum power to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
11.  Let the present complaint therefore be returned to the complainant with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Forum at East Delhi Saini Enclave, as per section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act.
12.  File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced On 05.02.2019

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra )  Member